We’ve been known to bag on a bad movie or two here at The A.V. Club—how can you not in a world that contains both Gotti and Life Itself?—but that’s only because acclaimed filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson has never pulled us aside at a party. John Krasinski, on the other hand, knows exactly what it’s like to have the Boogie Nights and Phantom Thread director inform you as to why calling movies bad can be, well, bad.
In a new interview with The New York Times, one in which the A Quiet Place director again waffles on whether or not he’ll direct the sequel to his 2018 horror hit, Krasinski recounted a meaningful chat he had with Anderson nearly a decade ago.
“I’ll tell you a big life lesson. Paul was over at my house, I think it was my 30th birthday party, and I had just seen a movie I didn’t love. I said to him over a drink, ‘It’s not a good movie,’ and he so sweetly took me aside and said very quietly, ‘Don’t say that. Don’t say that it’s not a good movie. If it wasn’t for you, that’s fine, but in our business, we’ve all got to support each other.’ The movie was very artsy, and he said, ‘You’ve got to support the big swing. If you put it out there that the movie’s not good, they won’t let us make more movies like that.’
Dude, Paul Thomas Anderson is out there on the wall for us! He’s defending the value of the artistic experience. He’s so good that maybe you project onto him that he’s allowed to be snarky, but he’s the exact opposite: He wants to love everything because that’s why he got into moviemaking. And ever since then, I’ve never said that I hate a movie.
Elsewhere in the interview, Krasinski cites the near-silent prologue of Anderson’s There Will Be Blood as an influence on A Quiet Place, and touches on just how supportive the legendary director has been of his directorial pursuits. Read it all here.
126 Comments
There’s always something to love in any movie. For instance, I met the set designer of Sharknado on a plane once. I didn’t make it through the movie, but I do remember there was a scene where Tara Reid’s house flooded; that must have been hard to do, making a waterproof set like that, so I was impressed and appreciated her work. She was unsure about whether she should include it on her resume. I told her I would!
This. It’s so fucking hard to make a movie. Whenever I watch a bad one, I focus more intently on those sorts of things. There’s always something redeeming.
The “garbage day” scene in Silent Night Deadly Night 2.
Yes it’s naff, but then you hear the story about how the producers wanted them to make a movie ENTIRELY out of footage from the first one (???) and the director insisted on at least a bit of money to shoot new scenes.
And you can tell, looking at the climactic shootout sequence, that the film is directed by a guy who is an editor by trade, because it’s beautifully covered with crisp, clean staging and a pretty impressive stunt. It’s a really well-staged sequence, even if it’s got dumb writing, strange acting choices, and a stupid premise. There’s skill at play.
There are other action scenes in it where they clearly couldn’t do everything given the pittance they were filming for, but the decisions they made in order to operate within their means were pretty much the best ones it was possible to make. The movie is definitely a bad movie, but it’s made by people who know what they’re doing and couldn’t help it.
Or at least lessons to learn about why something worked/didn’t work for myself/other audience members. I find it helps me refine my tastes as a viewer and be able to articulate what I like and don’t like.
This is probably the main justification for “Don’t say it’s bad.” In industry circles, you never know when you might be inadvertently slagging someone who would have been good to work with later on.
Plus, particularly for non-producers, the excellent work of professionals can be completely trainwrecked by the suits. (Happens in all professions, but nowhere as visibly as in media.)
PTA is one of a handful of directors whose movies I never miss seeing in theaters. I’ve seen every one of them since Boogie Nights, and I’ve only been disappointed once (Inherent Vice).
I was slightly disappointed in Phantom Thread. I was told that it wouldn’t be what I expected, so my mind immediately went to either Lovecraftian horror or the British version of Kill la Kill. But that’s on me. Good movie though.
So it was not what you expected.
Yes, it still wasn’t what I expected. However, I wouldn’t have used that phrase to describe the resolution of the movie. What I concocted in my head was a vary more interesting premise.
In other words, whoever told you that was right.
I liked Inherent Vice. It felt like both a spiritual sequel to Boogie Nights and a fun riff on The Big Lebowski’s stoner PI model.
And one of the only Pynchon books that could be made into a movie well too. Crying of Lot 49 would be a close second.
Imagine the entire movie series needed to cover Against The Day. The intro alone would be longer than the Hobbit trilogy
I’m looking forward to the one where they just lecture about quaternions vs vectors for the whole runtime. Though I would love the way the movies would have to shift directorial styles depending on the plotline like Pynchon did the text.
I love Pynchon, but I haven’t read Against the Day yet. Does he really get into quaternions? I took a course in general relativity and fields and we got into quaternions. I found it interesting – I think I first learned or first absorbed that the standard i,j,k vector labeling came out because it was an expansion of complex numbers.
It’s been 7 years since I last read it, so I don’t remember the specifics of it, but there are a couple of mathematician characters that deal with them and he goes into some detail, but mainly enough to just get across the thematic points.
Inherent Vice is not PTA’s best film but I freakin love it, love the music, and the look and feel of it. and that Katherine Waterson scene was a nice bonus.
And even if Inherent Vice wasn’t TWBB-caliber, it was still a lot of fun.
I saw Inherent Vice three times in theaters :devilsmile:
Really? Did you see The Master?
Saw it and loved it. It was overstuffed, full of ideas it couldn’t contain, the type of mess only a perfectionist could create.
You mean one of the best movies of the modern era?
Inherent Vice?! Movie was dope.
I liked Inherent Vice, even though it definitely isn’t his best and it led to a huge argument between me and my girlfriend (she was angry that I just wanted to talk about the camerawork in the scene where they’re running through the rain to score, while she wanted to talk about the fact that I’d shown up to the theater very stoned).
I was amazed that anyone could transfer the confused dope haze of Inherent Vice into a comprehensible movie. Doc kind of finds himself moving from one place to another without knowing exactly how he got there or what he was really looking for, and PTA’s movie captured that perfectly.
Agreed on Inherent Vice. And the next time I see PTA at a party, I’m going to tell him to his face!
I feel the same way, and I think it’s significant that Inherent Vice is his only movie that is explicitly based on content from another person.
AVClub could do with a huge dose of whatever Paul Thomas Anderson is on.
Respecting differences of opinion!?! Considering the impact of trashing something?!? In 2019?!? Well I never. Everyone needs to know my opinion in its most forceful and loud form.
I mean, another reason would be that Krasinski directed Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, and you know, glass houses, stones, and all.
Not too surprising, given that PTA saw enough goodness in lazy Happy Madison movies to cast Adam Sandler in Punchdrunk Love.
Screw that. If it’s bad, I’m calling it bad. I took my kid to see the friggin’ Emoji movie because he had a good report card and that’s what he wanted to see. And even he hated it.“If you put it out there that the movie’s not good, they won’t let us make more movies like that.” That is exactly what I’m hoping happens. Maybe there’s a point to defending a more artistic attempt that didn’t work, in the hopes that it will encourage more people to experiment and take chances, but some movies are beyond defending and the impulse that led to their creation should not be encouraged. I’m looking at you, Angry Birds Movie.
Yeah he’s clearly not referring to The Emoji Movie.
It would be pretty funny if he was referring to Hot Tub Time Machine….
“Oh, that one was shit.” ~ Paul Thomas Anderson
If you’re not part of their “business,” then I don’t think his advice was meant for you. But it is a nice sentiment.
I think that is what Anderson was telling him: people in the business should not dump on movies, because it makes it more difficult to be innovative. Early Hollywood director Frank Capra, in his autobiography, “The Name Above the Title”, also said he refrained from criticizing other movies, because he said that no tries to make a bad movie.
Wait until you find out that Medium Talent is really just Jim Jarmusch’s kinja handle.
Fuck that. I don’t care if you are in the business. Nobody should be saying nice things to Michael Bay. EVER! The only way he will stop making movies is if everyone tells him he sucks.That said, I think all criticism of “art” should come with explanations. “I didn’t like it because of this.” “I liked this, but not this.” If for no other reason than to point out that your opinion has been thought out. Nobody will listen to someone who just says, “That movie sucked!”
I think if it’s mainstream Hollywood crap, it’s still OK. I believe the admonition applies if it’s experimental or ambitious at all, or if it’s an independent movie it
Yeah. I very strongly disliked Mandy, but I won’t say it’s a bad movie because I appreciate its uniqueness even though it didn’t work for me at all.
I think this advice is specifically aimed at people in Krasinski’s position, which is to say, working within the industry. Like, it’s all well and good for us in audiences to pass these judgments. We aren’t in the industry or anything like that, so we are expected to pass judgment. However, we don’t have the first-hand knowledge of just how hard it is to make even a bad movie.
As someone in another artistic business, and as someone who knows how hard it is to make bad art, I don’t give a shit how hard it is, if it’s bad. Frankly, I don’t care how hard it is if it’s good, either.
Hey, don’t be dissin’ the Angry Birds Movie! I’m not calling it a modern classic or a must-see, but I appreciate a movie, that tells kids that it’s absolutely okay to be pissed off at the world around you and it’s sometimes the only appropriate reaction!
It reminds me of that goddamn Dave Eggers interview about not being a critic: “Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them.”… That makes no sense.
I’ve never met Trump and I’m a-ok with dismissing him!
It’s even more ridiculous when you consider dead people. Like, I’ll never have the opportunity to meet Hitler, but I feel pretty confident “dismissing” him.
To understand Eggers’s perspective, imagine if your parents were the type of transplanted Bostonians who held cocktail fundraisers for Mayor Daley and had pictures of themselves clinking champagne glasses with the Clintons and Donald Trump on their office walls. Eggers comes from a world where it’s believed that if someone is worth listening to, they’re already on your family’s Christmas card list
Obligatory link to epic takedown of Eggers: https://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977 That said, I understand where PTA is coming from here. If I have some kind of influence in the business, and I point out how bad (say) David Lynch’s Dune was, someone might start fucking with Denis Villeneuve’s funding. I mean, that’s not particularly a realistic case, but with something so much smaller scale, I can see it happening very easily. If I’m a chef, I’m happy to badmouth, like, Marcel from Top Chef as far as his personality and organizational skills, but never his propensity to try weird shit that might just taste awesome.
That essay is actually where I first heard that Eggers quote. I’ll add on this essay on the whole McSweeney-ite group.“Dave Eggers, the nucleus of the group, is pretty much the Bono of literature – a sneering, leathery vampire utterly dependent on the plasma of African children to survive.”But you’re totally right, I think I kind of get where PTA is coming from, it just wasn’t conveyed well. Criticizing batshit crazy movies, even if they’re bad, could hamstring batshit crazy movies that turn out to be awesome (e.g. most of Yorgos Lanthimos’ work). But it doesn’t apply too broadly, such as talking shit about a Transformers movie. That’s totally fine.
Oh damn, that’s fantastic. I’ll have to finish the remaining 80% at home where I can savor it.I thought about it a bit further and here’s where I think the essential difference is: PTA is telling Krasinski (a guy with a little bit of power) not to shit on people with maybe less power (especially the “batshit crazy” types just getting their first break). Meanwhile Eggers was telling everyone with no power not to shit on people with power, because – not having power – they essentially don’t have the right to an opinion about what people should do with their power. I can see why the admonitions seem similar at first glance, but there’s a way to read Anderson as principled here, which I think Krasinski understands but doesn’t explain particularly well.
It makes perfect sense when you realize that Dave Eggers is a scion of the Boston bourgeoisie, for whom gate-keeping is as natural as breathing. But I take your point that his is an idiot opinion from the fourth circle of Hell
I would’ve thought eighth circle, but well put.
Are you in the film business? I thought that was the whole point of the quote.
The problem is that TPTB in Hollywood will never take the right lesson from a failure. If The Emoji Movie is fucking terrible and bombs, they won’t admit that it was a terrible idea with shit writing and directing, they’ll say something incredibly stupid, like “people don’t like Patrick Stewart, I guess. It’s his fault this shitty movie did so badly a so let’s not hire him any more.”Look at how many times the DC movies shot themselves in the foot, claiming after each disaster that they knew what went wrong and the next movie was totally going to be better, only to drop BvS: WTFBBQ, Suicide Squad, and Justice League.
1. He is talking about people in the industry.2. I would hazard a guess that he is not referring to corporate-funded, trend-fueled films that pull more in merch $ than most films do at the actual box office.3. You should have known not to see The Angry Birds movie. It is not PTA’s job to prevent your self-harm.
Believe me, I didn’t want to. Sometimes I have bite the bullet and take the kid to see crap like that.Pro tip: sit on the back row so you can read your kindle during the movie and not bother anyone behind you.
Whatever works for you, but I am sticking with the pro-tip that has always served me well:
Don’t have kids.
You can call movies bad all day if you want to. PTA’s position is that people within the movie industry shouldn’t be shitting on each other’s work, which I think is a constructive position to take. The market and professional critics will speak loudly enough on the merits of each release.
Anthony Bourdain softened his position on calling out chefs like Emeril Lagasse after he realized how many people depended on him for jobs, and how he was juggling different sides of his business, some of them pretty cheesy, to keep the better stuff running.Bourdain still felt fine mocking Sandra Lee, though.
I think he is discouraging people in the industry to not say a movie is bad. I am sure he expects your standard moviegoer to voice their opinion.
Ditto. In fact, I used to tell my students: “If you want to learn how to write/make a good film, study the bad ones.”
He isn’t referring to you… You hate all shit you want, sir. As a film maker, you don’t shit on other films. Just as someone in the restaurant industry won’t typically talk shit on other restaurants unless there’s personal beef on the menu.You as the viewing public are entitled to shit all over whatever you please, cause no one is listening.
And the name of that particular movie Krasinski initially disliked… Paul Blart Mall Cop.
I understand PTA’s reasoning here, and I appreciate and respect his opinion.I’m not in the industry, so I’ll continue yell and scream about how bad “La La Land” is.
Eh, La La Land was hardly an experimental indie in need of protection…
Fair enough.Life Aquatic is brutally bad.
IF that’s your idea of an experimental indie you don’t see enough movies.
As a married father of 2, no, I don’t see enough films. I wouldn’t say it’s experimental, and maybe not indie, but it sure is shit.Let’s see…does Under The Skin qualify? Because that was boring as hell…or Serbian Film? One of the worst, most ridiculous pieces of shit I’ve ever had the displeasure to watch. If not, suggest some, and I’ll see if I know them or not
I don’t think Serbian film is indie or experimental but it is a piece of shit so we can go with that one. Under the skin is more experimental but I like that one.
I wanted to like Under The Skin, but it just went…nowhere. I’m not sure what constitutes an indie film-or experimental-but I’m willing to go in open minded to just about anything. I tend to watch a fair amount of-what I assume is-indie horror, and I’m more often disappointed than I am entertained or pleasantly surprised.
Yeah Under the Skin is great.
At the time Life Aquatic came out it was considered an experimental film, and was a pretty big risk for the studio and for Anderson. Luckily it became popular and public opinion on it changed or else he wouldn’t have the career he has today
La La Land was fine. It just got saddled with all of this political baggage that it never should have been. It was a sweet little movie
I’ll never NOT warn people about Sunshine. It has some pretty shots of the ship in space, but that’s like 2 minutes total of the runtime and the rest of the movie is just a complete and utter shitshow.
That movie and Kingpin are the 2 movies that people rave about that I just don’t get at all.
And ever since then, I’ve never said that I hate a movie.Krasinki still doesn’t get it. PTA wasn’t saying you can’t hate a movie. That’s a personal perspective – which everyone is allowed, ie “it’s not for you.” He was saying you shouldn’t call it “bad.” That’s an impersonal value judgement which really isn’t fair. It’s different.
My general rule of thumb is if something tries to do something new, interesting, or creative but fails I give it credit for the attempt as that is so rare these days. If something tries to do something stale or repetitive and fails then I’ll give it crap.
Right, the old AV Club “failure” vs “fiasco” distinction.
Yes, exactly like that.
I tend to feel similarly, though I know people (and hate this about them) who will consider the novelty a mark of success. Doesn’t matter if the movie actually fucking *works*, just that it’s new/interesting. Ugh.
Mr. Mike’s Mondo Video, a movie so bad that my parents and I had to run from the theater because people were throwing garbage at the screen and each other
Love it. More people should adopt the policy.
Well, OK. But I mean, ideally the movies would be good, ya know.
“It’s not a good movie” isn’t exactly shitting on a movie. Frequently that sounds like a fair, hyperbole-free assessment in comparison to many review headlines.
Additionally, there’s horrible, terrible films who’s viewing experience I wouldn’t trade for legion of Citizen Kanes.
Yeah, this advice probably crops up in every field – for just one example, look at how many crappy and/or corrupt cops are protected by their peers. This is an insider’s advice for other insiders, not a life philosophy for the masses.
No one is dying from watching a movie they didn’t like. Comparing this to corrupt cops is foolishness.
Just because the results are starkly different doesn’t mean the thought processes aren’t analogous. (And no one was saved from a burning building or a drunk driver by a movie they loved, either, so it’s not as though protecting movies is a pressing concern for civilization at large.)
Hollywood, home of mavericks who tells us, and their peers, what they should and should not say on a daily basis.
Right? Movies are stupid.
Cool.
“I haven’t seen it.” is the generally accepted Hollywood code for, “I didn’t like it.”
An actor friend of mine said that if actors see someone who was bad in a play / film / tv show rather than criticising it they just say “(Name), you’ve done it again!”
I feel like that’s a reference to a movie, but I can’t place it.
It’s something that happened to me in real life, but said friend could have taken it from a film.
Yeah. I think he did. Tell your friend he’s a liar and maybe he’ll out himself and tell us what movie it is.
I follow Sean Baker on Letterboxd and I found it interesting that he doesn’t rate anything or provide a real review. He’ll include a few words about his favorite parts of the film, but mostly he just says when and where he saw it. Good call given that he’s in the industry and may want to work with someone in a film he didn’t like in the future.
I’ve been trying to remove absolute qualitative statements from my vocabulary when it comes to talking about any form of pop culture – music, movies, TV, books, whatever – because enjoyment of any of these things is so subjective. I mean, if the camera’s (not deliberately) not in focus, or there are basic technical flaws, that’s one thing, but everything else is in the eye of the beholder, and the idea that there is some absolute measure of “good” or “bad” when it comes to entertainment media is, to my mind, part of what’s poisoned the discourse around it. “I didn’t like it,” is a much more accurate statement.
For the most part, this is absolutely right. Different tastes, different aspirations, etc. will lead to different art. I’m super tired of most horror material, but my hating it doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of well-crafted films for those who love it. People from unfamiliar cultures might employ novel narrative structures, offering a novel glimpse of human nature.And there will always be boundary pushers who experiment with format, structure, or content, and sometimes fail along the way, and the good that they create and inspire are worth the failures.BUT, there are those whose inability to tell a story, or take you on an inspiring non-narrative ride, or offer a hint of anything new, inspired or even interesting, deserve no appreciation or encouragement. Ditto the sort of craven money-grabs hashed together by committee with zero artistic intent or merit.
Interesting. Because I think everyone’s inability to be genuinely critical, especially in an informed manner, is what has poisoned the discourse. Not enough consumers of art are *actually* doing an analysis of what they consume. Maybe the Internet has given rise to subjective opinions being *presented* as objective fact but for sure I bemoan the lack of critical standards in these discussions. Which isn’t to say that subjectivity is wrong, but that I *personally* am ONLY witnessing subjectivity. And I find subjectivity to often (not always, but OFTEN) be intellectually lazy.(And maybe it’s worth talking about how tribalistic fandom has also fucked up critical discourse but that’s another convo.)
I’m absolutely with you on the tribalistic fandom. So, we agree there.Elsewhere…I’m not so sure. The thing is, you cite subjective opinions being presented as objective fact as a problem, but I don’t know where I advocated for that. I’m more saying that, when it comes to certain qualitative judgments we all make, there *is no objective fact* (Galaxy brain meme). I mean, when it comes to the things that make up a film, there are certain objective things we can look at, mostly on the technical side, and say, “That is good,” or “That is bad.” Do the actors know their lines, and speak them as if saying them for the first time? Are scenes lit well? Is the sound design coherent? Etc. Beyond that, though, *everything* is subjective. You say you bemoan the lack of “critical standards”…but what defines those? Who defines those? I have seen plenty of instances in which a shot that spoke to me, or a performance that spoke to me, didn’t resonate with someone else, and vice versa. What determines if I’m right and the other person is wrong? Who sets those goalposts? And why should their opinion on whether a film works or not matter more or less to me than my own? It’s all in how one looks at it. Show me a canvas with a bunch of spilled paint on it, and I’ll likely think of it as a mess…but someone else can look at a Pollock and see fine art. Who’s right? Does it matter? To paraphrase that classic film White Men Can’t Jump, media is just one big, organic globule, from which we each extract what we need. The idea that there’s some arbitrary standard that determines whether or not I’m extracting the “right” thing seems kind of odd.
I suspect I’m not going to win you over with this answer, but film critics. Film academics. Filmmakers. In your example, if the person looking at the spilled paint is an art critic, *their* opinion holds more weight than yours. The standards aren’t arbitrary, they’re agreed upon by the artists and the consumers who care to establish them. Those standards might change or be influenced by the cultures in which the art is made and consumed, but they aren’t arbitrary.If you believe that your experience, education, and inherent taste are the equal of a film critic or a film academic or a filmmaker, by all means your opinion should be the equal. But there’s a very Western idea that subjectivity of opinion means *equality* of opinion. I’m not a woodworker. I couldn’t tell you the difference between two chairs. I might “like” one more than the other but if an *actual* carpenter told me that the chair I “liked” wasn’t actually as good, I wouldn’t argue it. Because despite my preference, I’m not an expert. Doesn’t mean I will buy the expert-approved chair or that I will cease to like the one I like. But I can’t say “No, this one is better.”Of course now we come to the crux of this. Which is how much I hate that every asshole who has seen a movie thinks that seeing a movie qualifies them to have an opinion equal to…. I dunno, someone who went to grad school for Film and has worked in the industry and teaches film. As a random, totally not me, not taking this stuff personally example.
Well, I didn’t go to grad school for film but for social work and have spent most of my adult life watching film, reading about film, and even writing about film. I passionately disagree with this. What you learn in film school isn’t how to appreciate movies, but how to appraise them very much in the same way a woodworker would learn how to appraise a chair. Film appraisal may be more developed than the unexamined gut response of the popular audience, but it’s still not nearly good enough.It’s much more comfortable, easier to digest, to believe that people aren’t individuals that bring their own personal experiences to every film they see but rather byproducts of sociocultural forces that they don’t really understand and/or machines predicatively responsive to a given stimulus. If we were to subscribe to that we would, indeed, have some kind of concrete agreed-upon definition of good and bad. We would have answers.But my problem with that thinking, again, is that it reduces film to wooden chairs. Film is far more important than that to me and it’s far more important than that to a lot of people. I mean when it’s the right person and it’s the right film, that’s their fucking life up there- hopes, dreams, fears, anxieties, regrets, aspirations and all those other things that can’t be easily quantified. As far as experience, I would concur with Flannery O’Connor’s dictum that “Anybody who has survived his childhood has enough information about life to last him the rest of his days.” All you need to bring to a film is self-awareness and a willingness to let yourself be vulnerable.So essentially, I do feel that opinions are subjective and everybody’s are valid. The rub is that you need to REALLY REALLY REALLY think through your opinions. You need to own them. You need to be willing to defend them, announce them in public, and be judged on them. This isn’t a fucking game. And if you’re going to choose to stay in the film appraisal business you aren’t ever going to go full-in.
Ah. So the furniture builder is a lesser artist than the filmmaker.No.They are arts. They require mastery of craft. Craft has guidelines by which craftspeople work.Are they set in concrete? No. But they ARE agreed upon by the artists. And while the tastes of the consumers will obviously *influence* those guidelines, and any artist is free to *ignore* them, they DO exist. Regardless of how feverishly dilettantes might wish otherwise.
Yes, the furniture builder is a lesser artist than the filmmaker. Film is more important than furniture. Or at least, it’s more than JUST furniture. Maybe “concrete” is a little extreme, but if there’s consensus there is an objective standard and if there is an objective standard then that’s safe because you never really have to take any responsibility for what you do and don’t like and never have to be vulnerable. Here’s a specific example of my issue with all of this- James Wan’s THE CONJURING. Incredible craftsmanship. Superb. Seems to do exactly what it sets out to do. THE CONJURING is a very well made couch. Turn it in for a grade, you would have to give it an A+. And it’s completely vacuous. Hasn’t the slightest relationship to anything of the human condition- WHICH is the sort of intangible that (essentially) only our individual personal experience can give us any insight into.
You’re talking, I assume, about thematic resonance. And shit on that, Richie Tozier. Shit ALL OVER that. (Both a childish taunt and a literary reference!) Without getting into the argument that just because YOU didn’t connect with The Conjuring doesn’t mean it connects with NOBODY, this idea that any film HAS to “mean” something is patently pretentious horseshit. The ONLY responsibility of NARRATIVE film is to tell a story. Now I won’t deny that a well-told story that *contains* thematic resonance is more valuable to the art and to culture generally, but the only actual *requirement* is to tell a story.I like to use furniture as an example in these discussions/arguments because there is a tendency among consumers of art (and ESPECIALLY young artists) to view art as some unknowable, esoteric thing. If you as a filmgoer want to see it that way, well… whatever. That’s your problem. But it’s NOT. Anyone can make a film with the right training and practice and raw material. Just like anyone can build a chair. And film is *like* a chair (as is ALL art) in that it is *purposeful*. You build a chair to sit in. At the end of the day, no matter what wood you use or what color stain or what shape you carve it into, you have to be able to sit in a chair. Narrative film tells a story. There’s a beginning, middle, and end. There’s a protagonist (or protagonists) with a motivation that is complicated via conflict of some kind. That complication is resolved (happily or otherwise). The filmmakers use filmic technique to tell that story. (And here is where I tend to find disagreement with fellow film folks, because *some* people place visual artistry above narrative artistry in film due to its nature as a visual medium. To which I say, “Well fuck off and go watch Mothlight you arthouse twat.” Well, okay, maybe not that hyperbolically, but I think you take my meaning.) But at the end of the day, a narrative film tells a story. (Obviously I’m not talking about experimental, which is harder to pin down. But about which I give not a rodent’s sphincter.)It’s hard to entirely fight against your position as I also clearly value film and have dedicated myself to it fully. So I appreciate your reverence (somewhat misplaced and hyperbolic though I might also find it). But I don’t AT ALL understand why accepting the existence of artistic standards means a loss of vulnerability. That feels frankly absurd. Any filmmaker who wants to express him/herself is free to do so. What emotional truth or personal ethos would be prevented from expression by the adherence to artistic standards? Or even just the acceptance that those standards *exist*? If you find value in film that bucks convention, *fine*. But bucking convention is not inherently valuable. And conforming is likewise not inherently bad. In your example of The Conjuring, you call it “vacuous”. That it doesn’t have anything to say about the human condition despite its technical merit. Let’s say I agreed. What I would say *instead* is that The Conjuring *failed* to adhere to the narrative standard of properly connecting the protagonists to the audience. The stakes were unclear or too minor or introduced too late. The character motivations weren’t compelling. However they’re expressed, your complaints can be addressed using the agreed upon critical standards of narrative film. You don’t *have* to deny that those standards exist. And I find it unfortunate that so many filmgoers (and TV viewers for that matter) lack the critical vocabulary. It’s even *more* unfortunate when those same uninformed viewers then hop onto sites like AVClub and blather. You seem more informed than that, it wasn’t aimed at you, but your position seems primed to create more Know-Nothings. And I’ve had enough of them.
When I’m talking about a lack of vulnerability by focusing on artistic standards I’m talking about your lack of vulnerability as a viewer/critic not the lack of vulnerability of the filmmaker. When you talk about The Conjuring “failing” to adhere to the narrative “standard” of properly connecting the protagonists to the audience; you’re saying that well-made films create the simulacrum of intimacy between artist and viewer where none really exists. Subscribing to that concept is, to me, the very definition of isolating yourself from the risk of judgment, ridicule, and rejection and the potential for anything more substantive than amusement. So is suggesting that great art connects with the culture instead of you the individual. You see, the reason I champion subjective reactions over objective ones (though I acknowledge that both exist) is because the objective one absolves the viewer of any personal responsibility. Again using THE CONJURING as an example, I have a perfectly mixed reaction. I think that if you tell me that you hate it, you are denying the value of the simple, but still reasonably profound, sensual pleasures of a well-crafted film possibly to the point of asceticism. If you love it, yes, I think that means that you don’t really want to make any commitments or serious engagements to the world around you.
What you write here is the underlying problem. Love? Hate? Those are not *critical* terms and they don’t require critical analysis. Those are purely emotional reactions that require no thought whatsoever. We FUNDAMENTALLY disagree on what absolves a viewer of responsibility for their opinion. Subjectivity allows for anyone to dismiss any critical analysis by saying, “Pffft. Whatever, man, art is subjective.” I don’t know who you’ve dealt with in your life or what websites you’ve frequented where objective critical analysis has been used as a tool for absolution from critical justification.And again, the *purpose* of narrative film is to tell a story. “more substantive than amusement” is NOT the responsibility of the medium. We might want more from it and appreciate when we get more, but film doesn’t OWE us more than its purpose.
Well, I didn’t go to grad school for film but for social work and have spent most of my adult life watching film, reading about film, and even writing about film. I passionately disagree with this. What you learn in film school isn’t how to appreciate movies, but how to appraise them very much in the same way a woodworker would learn how to appraise a chair. Film appraisal may be more developed than the unexamined gut response of the popular audience, but it’s still not nearly good enough.It’s much more comfortable, easier to digest, to believe that people aren’t individuals that bring their own personal experiences to every film they see but rather byproducts of sociocultural forces that they don’t really understand and/or machines predicatively responsive to a given stimulus. If we were to subscribe to that we would, indeed, have some kind of concrete agreed-upon definition of good and bad. We would have answers.But my problem with that thinking, again, is that it reduces film to wooden chairs. Film is far more important than that to me and it’s far more important than that to a lot of people. I mean when it’s the right person and it’s the right film, that’s their fucking life up there- hopes, dreams, fears, anxieties, regrets, aspirations and all those other things that can’t be easily quantified. As far as experience, I would concur with Flannery O’Connor’s dictum that “Anybody who has survived his childhood has enough information about life to last him the rest of his days.” All you need to bring to a film is self-awareness and a willingness to let yourself be vulnerable.So essentially, I do feel that opinions are subjective and everybody’s are valid. The rub is that you need to REALLY REALLY REALLY think through your opinions. You need to own them. You need to be willing to defend them, announce them in public, and be judged on them. This isn’t a fucking game. And if you’re going to choose to stay in the film appraisal business you aren’t ever going to go full-in.
People who vehemently hate not only a film/show they consider to be bad but also the people who DID like it are what get me. As if it’s some kind of reflection of their intellect or character. Just fucking let me like Justice League, okay?
PTA’s “they” is pretty unclear—is it the people with the money? The audience?The artistic experience needs no protection, egos do. I suppose I prefer pointing out not good/bad things in the hopes they improve, and he takes them as the cost of living—that we can’t improve the percentage of good things. (also, he’s in the industry)
Was it “Tree of Life”? I’ll bet it’s “Tree of Life”.
Because that movie is capital-G, Garbage.
Nah, the birthday in question happened in October 2009. I can’t believe nobody else here seems curious about what the movie might’ve been. If they were talking about something that had just come out in theaters, something that was getting fairly good buzz, and something that was more-or-less independent (none of which are guarantees; he could’ve seen some 40 year old movie on DVD and felt the need to talk about it, but I’m assuming you only talk about fairly recent movies at parties)… then perhaps Zombieland? Where the Wild Things Are? A Serious Man? An Education? Bronson? The Informant?Any thoughts? Zombieland is the movie I would’ve been complaining about at that time, but I have no idea what Kraskinski’s taste is like.
Right? I’m dying to know which film PTA felt compelled to sorta-defend. Where The Wild Things Are is certainly a plausible suspect. It fits the mold of both “artsy” and “bad”
Somebody suggested THE LIMITS OF CONTROL. My money is on that one much more than WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. That was a film that didn’t completely work for me, but I still liked it for its arty pretentiousness and willingness to swing for the fences. I think it’s generally regarded as a misfire, I know that Roger Ebert wrote a scathing review on it.
Even though it’s quite good.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say the movie was Tree of Life.
Postal was bad. I kinda liked it though.
No, we *don’t* have to all support each other. What nonsense. Don’t be an asshole about it, sure, but speaking critically of the art you consume is absolutely fine and even essential if done in a constructive manner. This is classic fucking auteur artist wankery. mother! was scatter-brained onanistic nonsense but I’ll bet Anderson would white knight the shit out of it. UGH.Great filmmaker though.(But seriously, fuck this noise.)
We can still shit on other people though, right? Cause that’s all some folks are good at.
I think this POV is meant specifically for people inside the industry. Good directors don’t take the time or energy to shit on other content. Leave that to the viewers and critics. This is a very ethical and advisable position as a director who needs to ask a bunch of people for money to produce their content. It makes sense, and it solidifies my admiration for him. Which feels so good because I admire the shit out of him as a director. My immediate response to some of his more challenging films is always impactful if not entirely clear. But upon reflection, it becomes clearer. The Master is one of my all time fave of his. It took me two times to watch it to comprehend it. His movies are cerebral yet so physically vital. And he also has the bravery to cast extraordinary actors who can and do contribute to the overall narrative. I just don’t feel like anyone else is making that specific kind of cinema any longer. He feels of a different era to me, like he’s living in the studio system of the late 70s where he is given the resources to produce challenging stories with the risk of financial loss. A lot of credit goes to Annapurna films; they often take a loss when producing and releasing a lot of his films.
While I’m sure PTA has matured immensely in the past 20 years, my first thought reading this article was of the time in a Rolling Stone interview, he wished testicular cancer on David Fincher because of “Fight Club.”
We’re celebrating tribalism here because it’s in one industry?
Listen: the artistic experience is precious and should be defended. But doesn’t that just mean that Hollywood needs to create a space in the conversation for the (many many) circumstances where the artistic experience results in a swing and a miss?
The idea that they need to stop calling things bad in case “they won’t let us make moves like that anymore” just means that Hollywood needs better producers and to hang less on the line in the first place (like that hasn’t been a constant thread over the last 100 years).
In a couple interviews now PTA has stuck up for the superhero movie trend, pushing back against the increasingly common gripe that they’re “taking over” or that they’re all the same or whatever. And he’s also on the record as loving really dumb comedies, too.
It just floors me that someone with such an exacting vision as an artist can also have such populist sensibilities as a consumer, and just be so generally chill. And be married to Maya Rudolph.